On Monday, a coalition of eighteen states initiated legal action against the Biden administration, claiming that the administration is unlawfully imposing regulations related to transgender individuals on businesses and their staff. Led by Tennessee, the litigation targets the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice, accusing them of attempting to implement broad gender-identity mandates without legislative approval.
The legal complaint criticizes the EEOC’s “Enforcement Document,” which interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as requiring employers and employees to recognize preferred pronouns, permit transgender individuals to use facilities that align with their gender identity, and avoid enforcing dress codes based on biological sex.
Joining Tennessee in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti argued that such guidance from the EEOC is an overreach of power, undermining the constitutional principle of separation of powers and interfering with the rights reserved for elected representatives.
Skrmetti emphasized the concern that these actions by the EEOC not only disrupt the constitutional framework but also infringe on the privacy rights of women and enforce penalties for using biologically accurate pronouns. The implications for Tennessee employers and their ability to manage their workplaces according to traditional or biological norms are significant.
The guidelines in question stem from the EEOC’s recent updates to harassment-related policies that broaden the scope of Title VII protections against sex-based discrimination to encompass gender identity. These guidelines suggest that employers could be held accountable if a transgender individual’s preferred name or pronouns are not used by employees or even customers.
Central to the EEOC’s rationale is the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. However, the plaintiff states argue that the Supreme Court did not mandate that businesses adhere to specific practices concerning gender identity and sexual orientation beyond prohibiting discrimination for being homosexual or transgender.
The lawsuit points out that the Supreme Court in Bostock did not address the use of facilities or dress codes, and it maintains that the EEOC’s expansive interpretation of this decision exceeds the legal precedents and raises constitutional issues. The states are contesting the EEOC’s authority to enforce such comprehensive gender-identity accommodations under these legal frameworks.
